The AntiChris

Well, that's the system we have in the UK and some of us believe that it's the most humane and compassionate system for dispensing healthcare. The alternative is a system in which anyone who happens to be both poor and unhealthy have a tough time.

The effect of a "free" health sevice is that it can be seen as the "responsibility" of a citizen to maintain a reasonably healthy lifestyle so as not to unfairly overburden the system.

Whilst I'm an enthusiastic supporter of the British National Health Service, I would not want to see "unhealthy" lifestyles become the subject of moral censure (the logical consequences are just too frightening).

Chris

Thor Q. Mada

The Antichris

Yes, and I also don't want to see a censorship, but isn't knowingly endangering your health, and thereby forcing the community eventually to pay for it akin to stealing or fraud??
Let me admit herewith that personally I am not going free.
Should the community not do more to prevent such theft by education and coercing the public into living more healthy??
What good is studies like the China one if we don't draw the lessons and act on the conclusions??
All questions I know, which are virtually unanswerable.

DRFseven

Sorry, but that response is irrational. Please read the following entries from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate on the <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary" target="_blank"> dialectical method</a>.

And I am astonished that you are astonished. Really, Smashing, it's quite common and old hat. Our bodies are temples to be sanctified and all that. Nature "wants" us to survive. These are extremely typical attitudes.

Personally, I question my own conclusions on an ongoing basis. It's like applying a cultivator to garden soil; lot's of "weeds" are exposed and you don't have to pull them out later when they've become more fully entrenched.

DRFseven

I'm taking the position that anyone found wearing leather or eating a cheeseburger be subjected to slow torture and horrible death. Of course I'm not taking this position! How many times do I have to say this? I am talking about how diets and health relate to morality, not about how other consumer products relate to morality. A person can get just as much health benefit from eating a piece of broccoli off a leather plate as they can from eating it off a ceramic one.

SmashingIdols

You know Doc, I think we are from like different planets. We should try communicating in mathematics.

I read some of the discussion you linked to, showing the existence of some people I would have never believed possible, and I have no interest in taking the position that meat eaters are going to survive over those with more moderate diets. Why on earth does that seem irrational to you? You told me to read it, as I said I read the first couple of posts, said yuck, and moved on. Dialectal Method be damned - I think it is an irrational argument that has no merit. Why should I defend such a silly position? Moving on...

Okay - so afer you finish putting the leather wearing cheeseburger eating crowd in stocks for a public flogging (luckily I won't be included in this initial roundup), what about the following people:

My wife, who eats some eggs and dairy as part of her vegetarian diet. Me who eats a small amount of fish, and allows himself the pleasure of cheese and real cream in his coffee on the occasion he drinks it - however, does now consume eggs and honey. Did we get flogged too?

My question was to clarify what you mean by animal products. Are you promoting veganism, or some other (in my book more balanced) diet?

The AntiChris

In a society where healthcare is "free" this is often argued. The problem is, where do you draw the line? Who decides?

If you tke the idea of a healthy lifestyle being a "moral responsibility" to its ultimate logical conclusion, it would seem to offer a pretty bleak vision of the future.

Chris

Thor Q. Mada

Antichris,

You are right, and we don't want big brother to lead our lives, but I don't know if you are a European, but in Europe, because of excesses, the public health system is bankrupt, morally and financially. While the sytem was set-up to be a parachute (which private health doesn't fully address), it became a free for all,and therefore because of financial constraints is now being built of to an unacceptable low level, with disgusted staff (if they can be found). The only remainder of a basically good idea is a huge administration. Sanitation is necessary, but the political will is not available. I am sorry, I know this is not entirely following the China story.

SmashingIdols

Actually, Thor, this is the one big tie in of the results of the study to the actual moral implications resulting thereof! Socialized medicine seems to be a real mess - but clearly this type of social system could force some type of public morality consciouness regarding diet.

Earlier I was asked if I believed it was immoral to drive without proof of insurance - my response is no. It is not immoral to drive without the proof of said insurance, however I think it is immoral to drive without actually having the insurance - being it puts others at considerable risk financially.

Therefore, I must concede, that in a country with socialized medicine there could be major moral implications of studies like this (in that country).

I still think that all of the results of complete elimination of animal products from the diet are not yet in; however, there is no doubt that a major reduction of these products results in overall better health - thereby reducing the burden upon a socialized medical system.

I asked for it; I got it.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

DRFseven

Again, I must ask, are you sure you are talking to me? I have no idea of what you are referring to by the above paragraph.

I'm not promoting ANY diet, and I am not promoting the belief that meat-eating is immoral or that vegetarianism is "more" moral, because that is not my belief. I am CHALLENGING those who DO believe that optimum health = morality. If they truly believe this, since average vegetarians are healthier than average meat-eaters (where vegetarianism is not due to poverty factors), they are going to have to become vegetarian to remain moral!

However, people usually won't go to extremes. The normal pattern is for people to change their idea of morality when confronted with an unpleasant consequence. As more and more information comes in on the benefits of cutting meat from the diet, most will decide that it is NOT IMMORAL to let themselves be less than optimally healthy.

By the way, if you are asking what my personal idea of the best diet for western cultures is, I'd say predominately plants (making sure to get lots of raw, dark green leafy type) with a small amount of fish or supplementation. Occasional eggs/dairy are ok, but most people lack the genetic protection against cholesterol production for frequent consumption.

Personal habits: I eat mainly vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and seeds. I eat about 4 ounces fish once a week. I eat turkey on Thanksgiving, and sausage links on Christmas morning. I eat about one real hotdog per year. I have about 2 tablespoons skim milk each morning with coffee (which I am in the process of cutting out by increment). I eat egg-beaters about once a week due to the cholesterol thing. I also eat birthday cake and sometimes ice cream at birthday parties and have maybe 20 alcoholic drinks per year, including beer and wine. I don't buy organic fruits and vegetables. About once a year, I have a rare steak, and do I love it!

No, I don't have the best diet in the world, but so what? The rest of my life is not totally healthy, either. I drive in cars, fly in airplanes, cycle on busy streets, backpack in remote areas. I use noxious cleaning products in my home. I don't get enough sleep.